Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Boeing stock is up on the news they're going to patch the software that didn't cause their planes to commit seppuku   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing 737, Federal Aviation Administration, plane manufacturer plans, fatal crashes, Agence France-Presse, Ethiopian Airlines Flight  
•       •       •

390 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 Mar 2019 at 5:35 PM (5 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
5 days ago  
"It's pilot error that they did not properly recover from when the cargo door blew off, thrust reverser deployed in flight, rudder jammed, autopilot put it into a nose dive"
 
5 days ago  

whither_apophis: "It's pilot error that they did not properly recover from when the cargo door blew off, thrust reverser deployed in flight, rudder jammed, autopilot put it into a nose dive"


I suspect that when his phone rings in the middle of the night the CEO of Boeing he answers with "pilot error"
 
5 days ago  
Wow. This is stunning news.

/This is not stunning news. I'm not a BA investor (except for indexes) but if I had been I would not have sold a single share.
 
5 days ago  
Where are the pilot error guys at? Sure this couldn't be Boeing's fault even though they are issuing a farking patch.
 
5 days ago  
Held Boeing stock for a good 20 years, until I

A)  Realized I was old, and no longer had a long term horizon
B)  Figured the market was going to crash, so I sold all my stocks

A turned out to be right.  B, yeah, that was 2016, Boeing doubled after that.

On the other hand, I tracked the stocks I sold with how they did, and came out ahead by selling.

The moral?  If you try to time the market you might get lucky once in your lifetime.

I still own FUN, and am enjoying the dividends.  It's done a triple since I bought it some 10-15 years ago.
 
5 days ago  

drjekel_mrhyde: Where are the pilot error guys at? Sure this couldn't be Boeing's fault even though they are issuing a farking patch.


Hey, whaddya call a black guy flying a plane?!  A pilot!  Get it?

Wait. Hold on.
 
hej
5 days ago  
Boeing stock down on the news that Boeing admits their software killed 150 or so people.
 
5 days ago  
Is the patch considered 'reboot required'?
 
5 days ago  
Screenshot from a patched 737-Max:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
5 days ago  

drjekel_mrhyde: Where are the pilot error guys at?


If a phantom patch gets everyone to STFU about this, why not do it. I hope the patch just increases the software version number by 0.1.
 
5 days ago  

drjekel_mrhyde: Where are the pilot error guys at? Sure this couldn't be Boeing's fault even though they are issuing a farking patch.


Wreckage showing the plane's jackscrew was set to dive in addition to flight data demonstrating altitude oscillations and acceleration is keeping them quiet today
 
5 days ago  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
5 days ago  

centrifugal bumblepuppy: Wreckage showing the plane's jackscrew was set to dive in addition to flight data demonstrating altitude oscillations and acceleration is keeping them quiet today


Biggest question remains: Did the pilots disable electrical trim and revert to manual?
 
5 days ago  

mrmopar5287: centrifugal bumblepuppy: Wreckage showing the plane's jackscrew was set to dive in addition to flight data demonstrating altitude oscillations and acceleration is keeping them quiet today

Biggest question remains: Did the pilots disable electrical trim and revert to manual?


I want to know if the MCAS even activated since the plane was still below 1,000 feet over the ground and its probable the flaps weren't even retracted yet. (MCAS doesn't activate until flaps are at zero and you are in manual flight.)
 
5 days ago  

NemoD: (MCAS doesn't activate until flaps are at zero and you are in manual flight.)


That assumes there isn't a HUGE glitch where MCAS malfunctions and is active during unexpected flight modes.
 
5 days ago  

relaxitsjustme: whither_apophis: "It's pilot error that they did not properly recover from when the cargo door blew off, thrust reverser deployed in flight, rudder jammed, autopilot put it into a nose dive"

I suspect that when his phone rings in the middle of the night the CEO of Boeing he answers with "pilot error"


Well, there was QF72, the Airbus A330 that tried to dive into the ground -- oops, I mean "experienced an uncommanded pitch down" -- thanks to... bad angle-of-attack data. I don't remember European countries grounding the A330 until that could be properly investigated and fixed.

And then that whole AF447 thing, where it turns out the A330/A340 airspeed indicators sometimes just crap out, silently disable the anti-stall protection, and... oh, that was ruled "pilot error" because only some pilots ended up crashing the plane in that situation. No need to ground any planes for something like that.

Oh, and after Air France overloaded and unbalanced a Concorde on which they'd done shoddy landing-gear maintenance, resulting in it swerving all over the runway and turning into a ball of flaming death, and even their partners at BA basically said "yeah, there's problems with the plane and your maintenance"? France prosecuted a random Continental Airlines mechanic. But hey, they did ground the Concorde fleet, so one out of three ain't bad I guess?

Oh, and France is where the black boxes from the Ethiopian crash were sent. Wonder what the result of their investigation will be?

(yeah, it sucks we don't have an FAA director because Orange Julius wanted his private-jet pilot to run that and got shouted down, but don't anybody think for a minute that Airbus and/or Europe are shining beacons of wonderful perfect safety procedures, 'k?)
 
5 days ago  

ubernostrum: relaxitsjustme: whither_apophis: "It's pilot error that they did not properly recover from when the cargo door blew off, thrust reverser deployed in flight, rudder jammed, autopilot put it into a nose dive"

I suspect that when his phone rings in the middle of the night the CEO of Boeing he answers with "pilot error"

Well, there was QF72, the Airbus A330 that tried to dive into the ground -- oops, I mean "experienced an uncommanded pitch down" -- thanks to... bad angle-of-attack data. I don't remember European countries grounding the A330 until that could be properly investigated and fixed.

And then that whole AF447 thing, where it turns out the A330/A340 airspeed indicators sometimes just crap out, silently disable the anti-stall protection, and... oh, that was ruled "pilot error" because only some pilots ended up crashing the plane in that situation. No need to ground any planes for something like that.

Oh, and after Air France overloaded and unbalanced a Concorde on which they'd done shoddy landing-gear maintenance, resulting in it swerving all over the runway and turning into a ball of flaming death, and even their partners at BA basically said "yeah, there's problems with the plane and your maintenance"? France prosecuted a random Continental Airlines mechanic. But hey, they did ground the Concorde fleet, so one out of three ain't bad I guess?

Oh, and France is where the black boxes from the Ethiopian crash were sent. Wonder what the result of their investigation will be?

(yeah, it sucks we don't have an FAA director because Orange Julius wanted his private-jet pilot to run that and got shouted down, but don't anybody think for a minute that Airbus and/or Europe are shining beacons of wonderful perfect safety procedures, 'k?)


You're a good example why the black boxes wouldn't be sent to USA.
 
4 days ago  

Ketchuponsteak: You're a good example why the black boxes wouldn't be sent to USA.


Mostly I don't trust anybody right now. We don't have a functioning government, and Europe doesn't have a great track record.

And when you dig into it, it turns out basically everyone and everything in aviation is corrupt, and the industry has a great safety record in spite of that.

I also think that if we'd had the kind of pervasive social-media-driven narratives in 2009 that we have today, the A330 would have been grounded, because its AoA and airspeed sensor issues were really similar to what people allege is happening with the 737 MAX.
 
4 days ago  

mrmopar5287: NemoD: (MCAS doesn't activate until flaps are at zero and you are in manual flight.)

That assumes there isn't a HUGE glitch where MCAS malfunctions and is active during unexpected flight modes.


Yeah that would be a lot more serious than just "We assumed the pilots would know what to do without retraining or modifying the manual so we didn't make the system redundant" which is what they're fixing in with this new patch. We'll know soon enough when the black boxes are analyzed.
 
4 days ago  

ubernostrum: Ketchuponsteak: You're a good example why the black boxes wouldn't be sent to USA.

Mostly I don't trust anybody right now. We don't have a functioning government, and Europe doesn't have a great track record.

And when you dig into it, it turns out basically everyone and everything in aviation is corrupt, and the industry has a great safety record in spite of that.

I also think that if we'd had the kind of pervasive social-media-driven narratives in 2009 that we have today, the A330 would have been grounded, because its AoA and airspeed sensor issues were really similar to what people allege is happening with the 737 MAX.


Which A330 incident are you talking about? Surely not the one that was farking pilot error?
 
4 days ago  

Ketchuponsteak: Which A330 incident are you talking about? Surely not the one that was farking pilot error?


If you'd actually read my original comment instead of just making a drive-by sneer at it, you might know the answer to this question.
 
4 days ago  

ubernostrum: Ketchuponsteak: Which A330 incident are you talking about? Surely not the one that was farking pilot error?

If you'd actually read my original comment instead of just making a drive-by sneer at it, you might know the answer to this question.


You could clarify which incident you were on about. The airshow one was software farking up, the Air France one was 100% pilot error, with the plane doing anything it could to warn and save them, yet they still managed to stall.
 
4 days ago  

Ketchuponsteak: You could clarify which incident you were on about. The airshow one was software farking up, the Air France one was 100% pilot error, with the plane doing anything it could to warn and save them, yet they still managed to stall.


None of the examples I mentioned were the air show crash.

QF72 in October 2008 was an emergency landing with 119 casualties after multiple instances of uncommanded pitch down, traced to faulty software corrupting angle-of-attack data, triggering the flight computer to act against a (nonexistent) stall risk. This is precisely the type of problem being alleged with Boeing's MCAS, with the only difference being a question of whether the issue is in software or in the AoA sensor hardware. The worldwide A330 fleet was not grounded despite an incident with similar-seeming root cause only a few months later (QF71 in December 2008).

AF447, June 2009, was the worst outcome of a more general problem with the A330/A340 pitot tubes, resulting in at least a dozen known incidents in which airspeed data may have been inaccurate and the aircraft may have been operating in alternate law unbeknownst to the crew. AF447's crew certainly compounded the error, but the original comment I replied to was cracking jokes about Boeing trying to whitewash everything as "pilot error", and I think it's fair to call out Airbus on that one; the Airbus control layout certainly didn't help, as evidenced by the record of wildly incompatible inputs from the two pilots. And especially since one identified factor in AF447's crash was the lack of any clear indication to the crew that airspeed measurements had become inconsistent; Boeing has been getting tarred and feathered in the media this week for not making an AoA-disagreement warning standard and prominent on the 737 MAX.

AF447 also came only six months after the second A330 AoA incident. Yet European aviation agencies still did not rush to ground the A330 or to condemn Airbus for dragging its feet in identifying the problems and rolling out solutions.

Meanwhile, France in particular has a bit of a nasty history of playing "pin the crash on the American" when investigating aviation incidents, which is also fair to point out when someone suggests a need for a neutral country to conduct the investigation.

Of course, you're just here to sneer at anything that doesn't fit your preconceived narrative, so I don't know why I'm bothering to explain all this to you.
 
4 days ago  

ubernostrum: Ketchuponsteak: You could clarify which incident you were on about. The airshow one was software farking up, the Air France one was 100% pilot error, with the plane doing anything it could to warn and save them, yet they still managed to stall.

None of the examples I mentioned were the air show crash.

QF72 in October 2008 was an emergency landing with 119 casualties after multiple instances of uncommanded pitch down, traced to faulty software corrupting angle-of-attack data, triggering the flight computer to act against a (nonexistent) stall risk. This is precisely the type of problem being alleged with Boeing's MCAS, with the only difference being a question of whether the issue is in software or in the AoA sensor hardware. The worldwide A330 fleet was not grounded despite an incident with similar-seeming root cause only a few months later (QF71 in December 2008).

AF447, June 2009, was the worst outcome of a more general problem with the A330/A340 pitot tubes, resulting in at least a dozen known incidents in which airspeed data may have been inaccurate and the aircraft may have been operating in alternate law unbeknownst to the crew. AF447's crew certainly compounded the error, but the original comment I replied to was cracking jokes about Boeing trying to whitewash everything as "pilot error", and I think it's fair to call out Airbus on that one; the Airbus control layout certainly didn't help, as evidenced by the record of wildly incompatible inputs from the two pilots. And especially since one identified factor in AF447's crash was the lack of any clear indication to the crew that airspeed measurements had become inconsistent; Boeing has been getting tarred and feathered in the media this week for not making an AoA-disagreement warning standard and prominent on the 737 MAX.

AF447 also came only six months after the second A330 AoA incident. Yet European aviation agencies still did not rush to ground the A330 or to condemn Airbus for dragging its feet in iden ...


I don't memorise plane crashes, so I was unsure whether you where talking about the airshow, which was totally a software error, or the AF447, which was 100% pilot error.

At AF447 the pilots have a visiual horizon that tells them the nose is pointing upwards, they have a vocal speech saying "Stall! Stall! Stall!", constantly. They had the controls shaking indicating a stall. And ffs., they were flying straight up.

The solution I've heard, would be that the pilot and co-pilots controls would not be able to contradict each other. But FFS. I'm not a pilot, when the indicator shows how you're flying straight up, the controls are shaking and there's a voice yelling at you about a stall. I could probably have figured that out.

They had minutes. The Airbus can fly right at the limit, for a long time.

I don't know, what is the solution, that the computer just decides "OK, these guys can't take a hint", and just take control. But we don't like that either, as per that airshow, do we?


Anyways, I am still fine, and understand, why the blackboxes goes to France. They know their shiat, and are impartial. It's not like the FAA can't review the data either you know.
 
4 days ago  
I have a little hobby trading account (my real retirement is a mix of stock index and bond index funds)
I bought into BA, 20 shares at 373, after the initial drop..

I'm hoping to be ok
 
4 days ago  
Here's a picture of a house manufactured by Boeing:

i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
4 days ago  

dforkus: I have a little hobby trading account (my real retirement is a mix of stock index and bond index funds)
I bought into BA, 20 shares at 373, after the initial drop..

I'm hoping to be ok


I would have bought a lot more than that but all of my play around money is committed to another stock that recently took a dive due to overreaction to bad news. Not done making money on that one.
 
4 days ago  

Ketchuponsteak: I don't memorise plane crashes, so I was unsure whether you where talking about the airshow, which was totally a software error, or the AF447, which was 100% pilot error.


Which is why I provided the flight numbers, for easy Googling.

At AF447 the pilots have a visiual horizon that tells them the nose is pointing upwards, they have a vocal speech saying "Stall! Stall! Stall!", constantly. They had the controls shaking indicating a stall. And ffs., they were flying straight up.

In the middle of the night, over an ocean, in less-than-ideal weather, suddenly your instruments disagree. Which one do you decide to trust? Remember three things: the plane is rolling more than usual, which can make you wary of trusting that artificial horizon (the plane's supposed to have automatic roll protection based on instruments); the type of plane you're flying had a high-profile incident recently in which the stall-protection system was at fault; and, without telling you, the aircraft has also switched to a mode where its normal protections against going beyond the safe flight envelope are disabled.

Now for the real kicker: you've been getting periodic stall warnings, but they stopped. Out of an abundance of caution, and because you've still got what seems like a safe amount of altitude, you put the nose down a bit to try to figure out what's going on. And the stall warning starts up again. When you pitch up, the stall warning stops. This is the exact opposite of normal behavior. This is also, according to the data recovered, exactly what happened to AF447. So you've got instruments disagreeing with each other, you've got an amount of roll that's not supposed to happen, and you've got stall warnings that turn on when you pitch down and off when you pitch up.

The pilots had about three minutes total to try to diagnose this before the stall became unrecoverable, while bouncing and rolling around in a patch of turbulent air, in the dark.

So, again. Did they do things which compounded the problems? Certainly. But were they just boneheaded idiots who crashed where any baseline-competent pilot would have easily figured it out and kept the plane flying? No. AF447 was a tragic combination of machine and man failing together. It ended up implicating everything from system design to crew training to the basic reliance on so much automation in Airbus aircraft.

I don't know, what is the solution, that the computer just decides "OK, these guys can't take a hint", and just take control.

The computer threw up its hands and said "I can't figure out what's going on, you do it". Except Airbus forgot to have the computer tell the pilots when it's doing that.

Now, your knee-jerk reaction to that might be to give pilots more training on flying without all the automated control and protection systems. But then we get to talk about how American tried that with its Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Training Program, and the result was the AA587 crash, which killed even more people than AF447.
 
4 days ago  
Man there are a lot of dilettantes on here throwing around acronyms and technical-sounding terms to give the impression they know what the fark they are talking about.

This is going to be pretty simple to resolve, one way or another. The key components of the Angle of Attack mechanism were supposed to have a base plate of prefabulated amulite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings were in a direct line with the panametric fan. If the crash investigators can't confirm this then it will be a bad day for Boeing and its stock holders.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report